So it's now been a week since my original post addressing LaBtop's theory. Between the original posting date and my post there is also a one week
span. In this one week, slightly over 9 pages of posts were generated, most confirming belief in LaBtop's theory.

Since my post, there have been very few posts, none whatsoever addressing my attempt at a refutation or any of the original posts.

Why is this? Why has this thread suddenly become so quiet? Even if you don't agree with me you can at least try and find problems with my rebuttal.
Are we really to assume that nobody has any problems with my response?

rxponent, i understood you to sat that cutting a vertical column is difficult. especially because it needs to be displaced.
I did not read Labtop extensive description due to laziness, but I think he could have the times of day and sequenc incorrect, after all there wer no
video records of events inside the building.

He took seismograph records and linked them to the collapse of WTC7.
This is as far as proof goes, for speculation about the sequence of and how cuts, displacements, and such were timed and made, is unfortunately all
that i available to us at this point.

A cut can be made on a vertical column and that can be displaced later, pehaps that is why the penthouse failed first as it initiated displacement and
offsetting of supoort columns.

Myself, the seven story main trusses would be he key to the entire building. Disable them and WTC 7 comes down.

And the unpredictable fire in the building along with the damage was just coincidental and not influential at all, I guess? How is it that the
malicious people in charge of the demolition got so lucky?

Originally posted by Varemia
And the unpredictable fire in the building along with the damage was just coincidental and not influential at all, I guess?

Coincidental? No, it was a good excuse. Not a great one, but good enough. Not influential in the collapse at all? Bingo. Even NIST said the debris
damage was insignificant. As far as the fires alone being able to cause what happened to WTC7, all you have to do is resort to common sense. Much
less steel has burned for much longer in much more involved fires in other steel skyscrapers, but they don't collapse like that. The Cardington
tests in 2000 showed what happens. Expansion and deformation, that's it. No runaway self-destruction like a James Bond movie.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Coincidental? No, it was a good excuse. Not a great one, but good enough. Not influential in the collapse at all? Bingo. Even NIST said the debris
damage was insignificant. As far as the fires alone being able to cause what happened to WTC7, all you have to do is resort to common sense. Much
less steel has burned for much longer in much more involved fires in other steel skyscrapers, but they don't collapse like that. The Cardington
tests in 2000 showed what happens. Expansion and deformation, that's it. No runaway self-destruction like a James Bond movie.

The steel didn't burn bsbray, and the Cardington tests had no asymmetrical framing, and many joint buckles and seat issues were found. Stop playing
dumb.

You going to admit you posted an incorrect picture with the caption purposefully cut off yet? I put quite a bit of efffort into that post and it seems
to have chased LaBtop off ATS altogether and shut down any debate.

Read those posts first, then all the referenced older ATS and outside thermobaric links inside them.
Crux of the thermobaric matter :
See Tom Bedlam's post in the above second one.
Then you will find my reference to shattering steel columns like it was glass in the many other linked-to threads.

This is a Wikipedia link, for what it's worth, with lots of listed references : en.wikipedia.org...

There's not much hard information published on thermobaric weapons, they are clearly still top-secret all over the world, the latest toys of the
military are not ground for public dispute.

Any explanation from your side how that can happen? Saw his second photo?
Combined with the original US-media video evidence in my first link above, from David Chandler, the beam that changed momentum and direction, trailing
also a long plume of smoke behind it, all the way to the ground?

Btw, the manner how WTC 7 was exactly demolished was not the crux of this thread.
It depended in my opinion on the three huge A-formed trusses demolition.
And I did not point to that western side of floor 7 as the initiation point, I pointed at the long column standing on top of the huge A-truss, near
the stairs where Hess and Jennings got trapped in the morning after the huge explosion which threw them back up to the 7th floor stairwell.
That's the opposite easterly side.
One of those stood exactly under the eastern penthouse, which toppled into the roof first, during 8.3 seconds before WTC 7's global collapse started.
In those last seconds the western penthouse toppled also into the roof. And that's the side you pointed at, with the single huge A-truss under its
column leading to the roof area.

A report on an April 2001 conference discloses who was known to be working on such explosives at that time:
The 221st National Meeting of the American Chemical Society held during April 2001 in San
Diego featured a symposium on Defense Applications of Nanomaterials. One of the 4 sessions
was titled nanoenergetics…. This session provided a good representation of the breadth of
work ongoing in this field, which is roughly 10 years old.… At this point in time, all of the
military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives….
nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high
degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management. [20].
The feature of “impulse management” may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing
the noise level.

Read that last sentence? If you want to shatter a boxed-in steel beam such as exponent showed, like glass, you would be thinking of such an idea,
ain't it so?

This or one of these referenced papers is probably also what ATS-member Tom Bedlam read and from which he concluded that :

Tom Bedlam :
However, just for fun, I found some research being done on drilling into box girders and flooding them with thermobarics a split second before you
detonate them - guess what - it shatters steel box girders like glass.
What a weird thing to research.

It is worthwhile to read in your spare time the posts from him on this board, I assure you it's no lost time.

And could you show me the temperatures NIST used in its computing model you showed us? (NIST not ever published their source code, so we could play
around with it too. Baddest form of scientific fraud that exist in the scientific world.).

Because I remember the only deformations they could come up with which even faintly looked like the real demolition of WTC 7, namely a smooth gliding
down of all 3 visible outer walls, were accomplished by introducing crazy long and high temperatures effected on their steel beam/columns computer
model.
And still it looked nothing like what we really saw, including the 2.3 seconds FREE FALL acceleration.

Originally posted by Come Clean
I still go back to basic fundamentals. There was no way to put those fires out in the towers so they brought them down. Now I think they brought
down 7 for the same reason. It was on fire and no one was fighting it. So they brought it down.

No way could we have three towers burning like torches for weeks on end. So they brought them down.

Okay how did they know New York was going to be attacked then? You dont rig a building with explosives in a matter of hours. That takes planning, then
it must be executed.

This is a former Wikipedia description of the effects of a thermobaric weapon, and especially the second, underpressure stage fits like a glove what
some firefighters and witnesses described as what happened to them on 911 in the Towers, especially the firefighter who's helmet got sucked from his
head, upwards on the stairs he was descending when an explosion higher up occurred is noteworthy.

Weapon effects
The blast wave destroys unreinforced buildings and equipment. Unprotected personnel are injured or killed as well. The antipersonnel effect of the
blast wave is more severe in foxholes, on personnel with body armor, and in "stiff" enclosed spaces such as caves, buildings, and bunkers.

The overpressure within the detonation can reach 3 MPa (430 lbf/in²) and the temperature can be 2500 to 3000 °C. Outside the cloud the blast wave
travels at over 3 km/s. Following the initial blast is a phase in which the pressure drops below atmospheric pressure creating an airflow back to
the center of the explosion strong enough to have a human body lifted and thrown. It draws in the unexploded burning fuel to create almost
complete penetration of all non-airtight objects within the blast radius, which are then incinerated. Asphyxiation and internal damage can also occur
to personnel outside the highest blast effect zone, e.g. in deeper tunnels, as a result of the blast wave, the heat, or the following air
draw.

Oh yeah! That's why when NIST did their computer models of the potential collapse of WTC 7, it didn't look similar to the actual collapse until they
factored in the damage! It all makes sense now!

Seriously dude, it's like truthers aren't even trying. I would like to see one convincing piece of evidence that discredits the OS.

Did they release the source code for the simulation, or was it just a niiicce animation. The collapse has been very fatastic, at least as fantastic as
your "alien authopsy" video and the NIST report. The fact that the debries managed to single out a building out of an area and collapse it has been
just as fantastic. So many unique events.

Originally posted by Cassius666
Did they release the source code for the simulation, or was it just a niiicce animation. The collapse has been very fatastic, at least as fantastic as
your "alien authopsy" video and the NIST report. The fact that the debries managed to single out a building out of an area and collapse it has been
just as fantastic. So many unique events.

edit on 18-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

What is your freakin obsession with alien autopsies and tinfoil hats?! Get those retarded comments out of these conversations.

I don't know about the source code. All I know is that after watching the WTC 7 begin its collapse in slow motion, I looked at the physical details
and came to a conclusion about what had happened based on what I saw. I determined a collapse sequence within the building, though I am still a little
fuzzy about what happened during the collapse at the base. The damage that was reported and utilized in NIST's report seems to help explain that.
Literally a few weeks after I had determined in my mind what happened based off what I saw (when I very first began I did believe it was demolition.
My ideas changed as I looked closer, mainly after seeing the REAL beginning to the collapse), I saw a video about NIST's conclusions and their models
showed exactly what I had thought occurred.

Now, it is entirely possible that a single demo charge could have been used and even planted quickly to take out the column that appears to have led
to the whole building's collapse. However, the fires and damage to the building make me hesitant to find merit in that idea.

Originally posted by Cassius666
Did they release the source code for the simulation, or was it just a niiicce animation. The collapse has been very fatastic, at least as fantastic as
your "alien authopsy" video and the NIST report. The fact that the debries managed to single out a building out of an area and collapse it has been
just as fantastic. So many unique events.

edit on 18-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

What is your freakin obsession with alien autopsies and tinfoil hats?! Get those retarded comments out of these conversations.

I don't know about the source code. All I know is that after watching the WTC 7 begin its collapse in slow motion, I looked at the physical details
and came to a conclusion about what had happened based on what I saw. I determined a collapse sequence within the building, though I am still a little
fuzzy about what happened during the collapse at the base. The damage that was reported and utilized in NIST's report seems to help explain that.
Literally a few weeks after I had determined in my mind what happened based off what I saw (when I very first began I did believe it was demolition.
My ideas changed as I looked closer, mainly after seeing the REAL beginning to the collapse), I saw a video about NIST's conclusions and their models
showed exactly what I had thought occurred.

Now, it is entirely possible that a single demo charge could have been used and even planted quickly to take out the column that appears to have led
to the whole building's collapse. However, the fires and damage to the building make me hesitant to find merit in that idea.

Cool down man. You are forgetting yourself. Why is this all so important to you? Is posting here your job? Why do you constantly feel the need to butt
in? Is it unrational to you, to doubt that fires did what usually demolition experts do with ample time to plan, not to mention all the other
fantastic coincidences and tales? If you have a problem with the NIST report not being accepted, take it to firefighters for truth and all the people
with expertise outside the NIST umbrella, who have not been convinced. Untill you do that, I rather not side with those fantastic claims since doing
so would put me on the fringe of society and make me look as silly as a guy wearing a tinfoil hat screaming alien invasion.

I'm not saying it's unreasonable to doubt things, but it is unreasonable to ignore evidence that is readily available. I'm not ****ing being paid
to be here for christ's sake! It ticks me off SOOO much when you guys resort to that tactic because people don't agree with your notions.

Man 1: I believe in flying saucers
Man 2: Why?
Man 1: Because, there is questionable evidence that they don't exist
Man 2: Um, what? I haven't seen the evidence that they exist, just blurred photos and bad videos that could easily be planes
Man 1: Are you being payed to argue against me? You must be a government agent. *sets man 2 on ignore and poors his cool-aid*

I'm not saying it's unreasonable to doubt things, but it is unreasonable to ignore evidence that is readily available. I'm not ****ing being paid
to be here for christ's sake! It ticks me off SOOO much when you guys resort to that tactic because people don't agree with your notions.

Man 1: I believe in flying saucers
Man 2: Why?
Man 1: Because, there is questionable evidence that they don't exist
Man 2: Um, what? I haven't seen the evidence that they exist, just blurred photos and bad videos that could easily be planes
Man 1: Are you being payed to argue against me? You must be a government agent. *sets man 2 on ignore and poors his cool-aid*

Well you would be the one believing in flying saucers. We are trying to look for rational explanations to the fantastic tales and never before never
again events of september 11.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.